NOOR SHAH vs IFTIKHAR AHMAD and others
This criminal revision petition challenges the legality of an order passed by the trial court declaring respondent No.1 as a juvenile and directing the submission of a separate challan under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 in a case registered under sections 302, 452, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether respondent No.1 qualified as a juvenile on the date of the alleged occurrence. Pursuant to this Court's order, a Medical Board examined the respondent, and its report established that his age on the date of the occurrence was approximately 22 to 24 years, rendering him well above eighteen years of age. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order declaring the respondent a juvenile was legally unsustainable. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and disposed of the revision petition, laying down that an accused person exceeding eighteen years of age at the time of the offense cannot be treated as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
- Whether an accused person who is more than eighteen years of age on the date of the occurrence can be declared a juvenile?
- Can an order transferring a case to a Juvenile Court be set aside if medical evidence proves the accused was an adult at the time of the offense?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000
ORDER
' MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAMUZ-ZAMAN, J.---Petitioner is complainant of case F.I.R. No.344 of 2004', dated 9-9-2004 for the offence under sections 302/452/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Jauharabad, District Khushab. During the trial upon the application of Iftikhar Ahmed alias Iftikhar Hussain (respondent No.1), learned trial Court vide order dated 1-10-2005 while declaring him as juvenile directed for the submission of a separate challan to his extent under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 and through this criminal revision the legality of the said order has been challenged.
2. Under the order of this Court to determine the age of respondent No.1, report was obtained from the concerned Medical Board. This report reveals that respondent was examined by the Board on 29-10-2005 and in the opinion of the Board, on the said date the age of respondent No.1 was (sic) years. The occurrence in this case took place on 9-9-2004 and in this view of the matter respondent No.1 was 22/24 more than eighteen years on the relevant date. Accordingly the impugned order qua sending the case of respondent No.1 (Iftikhar Ahmed alias Iftikhar Hussain) to the Juvenile Court is not sustainable, the same is set aside. Disposed of.